-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Emil Dotchevski Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:21 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Faulhaber Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 5:49 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
So this is my suggestion: (1) Let's increase the standards: Let's make it more difficult for a library to be accepted into boost.
Strong disagreement - we need to make it *easier* to meet Boost Quality (and yet improve quality too).
The main improvement should come from more eyes viewing the code - isn't that the strength of Open Source?
To achieve this we need a way to get more 'candidate code' in real-life use by more people for a much longer period of time.
+1 in principle, there is no substitute for feedback from actual use of a library, but IMO this contradicts with your disagreement:
requiring 'candidate code' to be used in real life by more people would make it harder for library developers, not easier.
It would mean more work for developers dealing with the feedback while in 'candidate' mode, but it would make it *easier to achieve Boost Quality* and get over the bar. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com